( 1 ) THE petitioner, Suit. Manju Singh was married to the respondent Ajay Bir Singh on 21st January, 1979 at Village and P. O. Chautala, District Sirsa, Haryana. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 (l) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act ) for a decree of divorce on the ground that after the solemnisation of marriage the wife treated the husband with cruelty. The wife was served with the summons of the divorce petition for 11th September, 1984. It was submitted on her behalf that she was in advanced stage of pregnancy residing at Village Chautala and was not in a position to undertake Journey and be persent in court. It was requested that a date for reconciliation before the filing of the written statement after about 1 months be given. The request was refused by the trial court and the following order was passed on 11th Steptamber, 1984:-

"the respondent requests for a date of to effect reconciliation before the written statement as she will not be able to come before one and half months. The case cannot be adjourned for reconciliation only for such a long time. In the meanwhile let her file a written statement on 24th September, 1984. Vakalatnama by respondent s counsel to be filed today".

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner delivered a female child on 18th September, 1984, and to avoid any confrontation between the parties, to reconcile and save the marriage, a request was made on her behalf to the trial court to make an attempt for reconciliation before filing the written statement but it was turned down. He submits that filing of the written statement was not necessary when the petitioner was ready and willing to reconcile with the respondent.

( 3 ) THE short question in this revision is about the scope of the provisions of relating to reconciliation proceedings under the Act. Section 23 (2) of the Act reads as under :

"23 (2) Before proceedings to grant any relief under this Act, it shall be the duty of the Court in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case to make every end eavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parlies. Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply to any proceeding wherein relief is sought on any of the grounds specified in Clause (ii ). Clause (iii ). Clause (iv ). Clause (v) Clause (vi) or Clause (vii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13".

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that no attempt was made by the trial court for reconciliation as required by the section and on the contrary the petitioner wife was directed to file written statement. The object of provision for reconciliation would be frustrated as in his view the allegations have already been made by the husband against her and if she files written statement and brings out the counter-allegations on record there may not be any possibility for reconciliation between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent husband on the other hand submits that the duty of the court to attempt reconciliation is at a time when the case is ready for granting relief under the-Act. His submission is that before giving final judgment the court is under duty to attempt reconciliation and not before He has referred to Sakri v. Chhanwarlal, AIR 1975 Rajasthan 134 wherein it has been observed that the words in the first instance only denote that the court must make endeavour before granting relief. In that case no attempt was however made for reconciliation and the High Court remanded the case to the trial court to attempt reconciliation. With respect, I do not agree with the view expressed by the learned Judge.

( 5 ) IN V. K. Gupta v. Nirmala Gupta, 1980 HLR 290 dealing with a case of divorce under the Act, the Supreme Court made the following observations :-

"it is fundamental that reconciliation of a ruptured marriage is the first essay of the Judg